[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Gopiki Soma Lingudkar vs The Deputy Collector And Sdo Pernem ... on 6 March, 2026

2026:BHC-GOA:415
2026:BHC-GOA:415

                                               WP-198-2024.docx


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 198 OF 2024

           Smt. Gopiki Soma Lingudkar,
           Wife of late Shri Soma Lingudkar,
           71 years of age, widow,
           Residing at H.No.206,                                  .... PETITIONER
           Alorna, Taluka Pernem, Goa.

                                  V/S.

           1.      The Deputy Collector &
                   S.D.O.,
                   Pernem Taluka, Pernem- Goa.

           2.      Shri Vassudev Atmaram
                   Parab,
                   Son of late Shri Atmaram
                   Vishnu Parab,
                   Major of age,
                   r/o. H.No.136/C,
                   Gauthanwada, Alorna, Pernem
                   - Goa.

           3.      Smt. Smita Vassudev
                   Parab,
                   Wife of Shri Vassudev
                   Atmaram Parab, Major of age,
                   r/o. H.No.136/C,
                   Gauthanwada, Alorna, Pernem
                   - Goa.

           4.      Communidade of Alorna,
                   through its Attorney,
                   Having its office at Alorna,
                   Taluka of Pernem Goa.

                                                    1 OF 39




                ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2026                          ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 22:01:47 :::
                                     WP-198-2024.docx


5.   Administrator of
     Communidades,
     North Zone, Opposite to                           .... Respondents.
     Mapusa Civil Court, Mapusa,
     Bardez- Goa.

Ms. Nicole Mayekar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Ms. Sulekha Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for
the Respondent Nos. 1 and 5.
Mr Deepak Gaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2
and 3.

                         CORAM :               VALMIKI MENEZES,J.
                         RESERVED ON: 5th MARCH,2026
                         PRONOUNCED
                         ON       : 6th MARCH,2026

JUDGMENT :

1. This Petition assails two orders, both dated 16.12.2023,

passed by the Deputy Collector, SDO, Pernem Taluka in case

no. DCP/MND/APL/3-9/2023. The first order allows an

application filed by Respondent No.2 and 3 for leave to appeal

while the second order grants stay of Judgment and Order

dated 04.07.2023 passed by the Joint Mamlatdar-1 of Pernem

Taluka in Case No. JM-I/MND/PUR/11/2020 allowing

2 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

present Petitioner's application for purchase of a dwelling

house and land appurtenant thereto, under Section 16 of Goa

Daman and Diu Mundkars ( Protection from Eviction) Act

1975.

FACTS WHICH ARE BORNE FROM THE

AVERMENTS IN THE PETITION:

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that, the Petitioner had

filed an application on 01.09.2020, for the purchase of a

dwelling house before the Joint Mamlatdar-1 of Pernem

Taluka in Case No. JM-I/MND/PUR/11/2020; vide its

Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2023, the Mamlatdar

invoked powers under Section 16 of the Act and allowed the

same.

3. Subsequently the Respondent No.2 and 3 herein, filed an

application seeking leave to file appeal, challenging the

aforementioned Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2023 along

with an application for Stay of the said Judgment and Order,

both dated 01.09.2023, before the Deputy Collector and SDO

of Pernem (Respondent No. 1 herein). An Appeal under

3 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

Section 24 of the Goa Mundkar (Protection from Eviction) Act,

1975 bearing number DCP/MND/APL/3-9/2023 was also filed

on 01.09.2023 before Respondent No. 1.

4. Thereafter, by an Order dated 16.12.2023, Respondent

No. 1 allowed the applications dated 01.09.2023, thereby

granting the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 leave to appeal and stay

of the said Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2023.

5. On the very same day, i.e. on 16.12.2023, the Petitioner

filed separate applications for urgent certified copies of the

Orders passed by Respondent No. 1 in the application for stay

and in the application seeking leave to appeal, which were

inwarded in the Office of Respondent No. 1 on 18.12.2023

under Inward Nos. 7110 and 7109 respectively. The said

Applications were followed by reminders/requests dated

29.12.2023 made by the Petitioners and inwarded in the Office

of Respondent No. 1 under inward Nos. 7308 and 7309

respectively.

6. Pursuant to such repeated requests for urgent certified

copies of the Order dated 16.12.2023, the Office of Respondent

No. 1 on 02.01.2024, furnished only the Order dated

4 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

16.12.2023 recorded in the Proceeding Sheet of the

application for leave to appeal and order dated 16.12.2023 on

the Proceeding Sheet of the application for stay of the Order

and Judgment dated 04.07.2023.

7. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2023 passed by

Respondent No.1 in the Proceeding Sheet, the Petitioner filed

two separate Mundkar Revision Applications before the

Administrative Tribunal, Panaji in Mundkar Revision

Application No. 3/2024, challenging the order granting leave

to file appeal to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and in Mundkar

Revision Application No. 2/2024, challenging the order

granting stay of the Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2023.

8. The Administrative Tribunal, vide Order dated

04.01.2024 in Mundkar Revision Application No. 2/2024,

requested Respondent No. 1 to defer the hearing of the

proceedings beyond the returnable date i.e. 06.02.2024.

9. On 06.01.2024, the Petitioner appeared before

Respondent No. 1 and placed the Administrative Tribunal's

Order dated 04.01.2024. It is at this juncture that Respondent

No. 1 voluntarily provided a copy of his detailed Judgments

5 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

dated 16.12.2023 purportedly passed on the application for

leave to appeal and the application for stay of the Judgment

and Order dated 04.07.2023 filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3,

to the Petitioner.

10. It is the Petitioner's case that in the Mundkar Revision

Application No. 3/2024, the Petitioner had specifically taken a

ground that the order dated 16.12.2023 was a

non-speaking/unreasoned order and as such, Respondent No.

1 could not supplement the lack of reasoning in the Proceeding

Sheet orders by furnishing belatedly, a separate judgment

recording such reasons.

11. Aggrieved by the conduct of Respondent No. 1, the

Petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer to quash

and set aside the order of Respondent No. 1 dated 16.12.2023.

SUBMISSIONS

12. The following submissions are advanced by the

Advocate for the Petitioner, Ms.Nicole Mayekar:

a. It was submitted that the fact that the reasoned

judgment was prepared much after the order dated

6 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

16.12.2023 was entered in the proceeding sheet, is

evident from the fact that it was only after the

Administrative Tribunal directed Respondent No.1 to

defer the hearing of the appeal to a date after

06.02.2024, that the Respondent No.1 voluntarily

handed over to the Petitioner on 06.01.2024, an order

dated 16.12.2023 containing reasons. This was

despite the fact that the Petitioner had issued a

reminder to the Respondent No.1 to furnish a copy of

the order dated 16.12.2023, after which only a

proceeding sheet order of that date was issued.

b. It was further submitted that even the proceeding

sheet order dated 16.12.2023 was handed over after a

period of 15 days, on 02.01.2024; further, there is not

a single stamp on the certified copy of the reasoned

order stating the date when the same was completed,

or the date when the application for obtaining that

order was received or the date when it was delivered.

It was submitted that the whole procedure followed

by the Deputy Collector is suspicious and does not

7 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

inspire any confidence, and clearly points to the fact

that the reasoned order was passed much later, and

after the Revision Application was filed before the

Tribunal, only to nullify the grounds taken therein,

that the proceeding sheet order was an unreasoned

order.

c. In furtherance of her arguments she relied on the

Judgement dated 10.04.2023 of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in The Registrar General, High Court of

Karnataka and Anr V/s Shri M. Narsimha

Prasad in Civil Appeal No.2519-2522 of 2023.

13. Learned Government Advocate Ms. Suleka Kamat,

representing the Respondents No.1 and 5 has made the

following submissions:

a. It was submitted that after directions of this Court

issued under orders dated 07.03.2024, 29.08.2024,

an enquiry was conducted into the grounds stated in

the petition, and the enquiry report of the Collector is

inconclusive as to whether the reasoned judgment

dated 16.12.2023 was prepared at a later date and

8 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

placed in the file. It was further submitted that

pursuant to this Court's order dated 04.12.2024, the

Chief Secretary has conducted an enquiry and has

imposed a penalty against the Respondent No.1 of

"Censure", after concluding that the officer had

committed serious lapses and had failed to adhere to

procedure laid down for issuance of Certified Copies

in the Circular dated 16.10.2006. A copy of the

Circular dated 16.10.2006 was also placed on record

to submit that the quasi-judicial Authorities which

are named in the Circular have in fact been directed

to issue Certified Copies applied for on urgent basis,

not later than two days from the date on which they

had applied for.

b. In furtherance of her arguments she relied on order

dated 24.08.2006 of this Court in Shri Pradeep

K.R. Sangodker V/s The state of Goa and Anr

in Writ Petition no.281 of 2006.

14. Shri Deepak Gaonkar, learned Advocate for the

Respondent Nos. 2 to 3, has taken me through the judgment of

9 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

this Court in Shri Pradeep K.R. Sangodker (supra), and

through the Circular dated 16.10.2006, and submitted, whilst

not admitting the grounds raised in the petition, that it is often

the practice of the Revenue Courts and Authorities at the level

of the Mamlatdar and Collector dealing with quasi-judicial

matters under the Goa Land Revenue Code 1968 , The Goa,

Daman and Diu Mundkar's (Protection from Eviction) Act,

1975, The Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act 1964, The Goa,

Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966 to issue

Certified Copies of their judgments without specifying the date

on which they were applied for, the date when the Certified

Copy was completed, the date when the Certified Copy was

actually delivered, and without notifying the party in writing,

of the date for collection of the Certified Copy. He submitted,

that without prejudice to the Respondent's contention on the

passing of the impugned order, on their merit, it would be

advantageous if this Court clarifies, and issues necessary

directions in the interest of all the litigants before those

Courts, to streamline the procedure for issuing the Certified

Copies of their records.

10 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

15. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court

after notice was served to the Respondents, an order of

07.03.2024 came to be passed directing the Deputy Collector,

Pernem to remain personally present in the Court on

13.03.2024 to explain his conduct of recording one order in

the Proceeding Sheet dated 16.12.2023 and thereafter

supplementing the reasons by subsequent order, which was

predated to 16.12.2023.

The matter was heard on 29.08.2024, when it was

submitted on behalf of Respondent No.1, the Deputy Collector,

as explanation, that he was under the impression that since

the application for certified copy of the order dated 16.12.2023

had been filed, he had furnished only the order contained in

the proceeding sheet. It was further submitted on behalf of the

Deputy Collector that the copy of the detailed judgment was

furnished later on when the officer realised that the

Administrative Tribunal had granted stay of his order. On

further submissions made by the Petitioner, this Court, by an

order of 29.08.2024 was of the opinion that the circumstances

under which the copy of the reasoned judgment came to be

11 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

furnished at a later date required inquiry and accordingly

directed the Collector to conduct an enquiry into the

circumstances under which the order was passed in the

following terms:

..........

10. In this matter an application for urgent certified copy was filed by the petitioner on 16.12.2023 which was disposed of by handing over the certified copy of the roznama dated 16.12.2023.

Thus, there is no question of handing over another copy of the detailed order dated 16.12.2023 to the petitioner.

11. It appears that a detailed order which is now furnished to the petitioner dated 16.12.2023 was not at all available, ready at the time when the order allegedly pronounced in the roznama. It further shows that even as on 2.1.2024 such order was not available or ready which is clear from handing over of roznama copy to the petitioner.

12. Respondent no.1 is acting as quasi judicial authority and thus judicial propriety demands that when the order is pronounced, the same should be available in the file, duly signed for the purpose of issuing certified copy to the parties. The fact that the certified copy of the roznama is issued itself shows that a detailed order was subsequently prepared and placed in the file. This is a very serious matter and amounts to manipulation of the record by the officer concerned.

12 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

13. Matter needs to be thoroughly examined, accordingly, Collector North Goa is therefore requested to look into the matter by conducting an inquiry and report compliance. Such inquiry should be conducted preferably within a period of one month so as to consider the same further. Copy of this order be furnished to the Collector North Goa for the purpose of doing the needful.

14. The Collector shall file a report after conducting the inquiry within a period of one month. Till the time of receipt of the report from the Collector, the impugned judgment dated 16.12.2023 shall be stayed.

16. A Report dated 15.10.2024 was ultimately placed on

record by the Collector of North Goa on 04.12.2024. The

Report of the Collector is extremely sketchy and does not state

with clarity whether the copy of the judgment and order dated

16.12.2023 containing reasons was actually passed on

16.12.2023 and was in the concerned file on the same date.

Paragraphs of the Report reads thus:

8) Further, the Court Clerk, office of the Deputy Collector & SDO, Pernem informed that the copy of both judgement and order dated 16.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Collector & SDO, Pernem on stay application and seeking leave to file appeal in case no. DCP/MND/APL/3-

9/2023 was ready in the file and the same

13 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

was issued to both the Ld. Advocate for appellant as well as Ld. Advocate for respondent No.1 on 06.01.2024 in open court.

9) Since the Dy. Collector and SDO, Pernem pronounced the order and the party sought for certified copy of the order, the Dy. Collector and SDO, Pernem ought to have provided the certified copy of Judgement/Order not later than 7 days as per circular No. 11/32006-LD/ESTT dated 16th October 2006 from Under Secretary (Estt.) (Copy enclosed). Hence there is procedural lapse on the part of the Dy. Collector and SDO, Pernem.

10) However there is no enough evidence to establish manipulation of records. Since operative part of roznama and detailed judgement and order passed by the Deputy Collector & SDO, Pernem is same, it appears that there is no intention of the Deputy Collector & SDO, Pernem to manipulate the record.

17. The Report refers to information from the Court Clerk of

the office of the Deputy Collector that the reasoned judgment

dated 16.12.2023 was ready and was in the file, and copies of

the same were given to both the Advocates on 06.01.2024. The

report does not conclude whether in fact it could be

established from other contemporaneous records whether

there was any entry made in the concerned file or in any

14 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

entries in the proceeding sheets do not reflect this position.

18. Taking note of this report of the Collector, this Court, by

an order of 04.12.2024 rejected the report stating that there

was no explanation why the copy of the reasoned order was

not furnished to the Petitioner, when applied for, immediately

on the same date, nor is there any explanation as to why the

certified copy was not issued, instead, issued on 06.01.2024.

This Court then directed the Chief Secretary of Goa to look

into the matter and take appropriate action. The order of

04.12.2024 is quoted below:

1. The report of the Collector North Goa dated 15.10.2024, seems to be an attempt to save concerned officers with regards to issuance of the Judgment and Order. At one stage it is claimed that the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.2023 was passed and ready in the file, it is clear that such an order was not issued to the parties till 06.01.2024. The Roznama copy was issued to the Petitioner when he applied for the certified copy of Judgment and Order.

It is clear case to show that on 16.12.2023 only the Roznama order was passed allowing the said Appeal. The reasoned order, copy of which was furnished to the Petitioner only on 06.01.2024, was not handed over when the certified copy of the Roznama was issued. There is no explanation as to why the copy of

15 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

the reasoned order was not furnished to the Applicant/Petitioner when he in fact applied for the certified copy immediately on the same day. There is no explanation as to why certified copy was issued on 06.01.2024.

2. Accordingly, the report of the Collector, North Goa cannot be accepted as compliance. Request is therefore made to the Chief Secretary to look into the matter as it is serious when the authority who passed the order has not handed over the certified copy to the parties and such orders are passed only in the Roznama but, later on reasoned orders are placed on record. Let the Chief Secretary of Goa look into the matter and take appropriate action.

19. The learned Advocate appearing for the State placed on

record an order of 24.12.2024, passed by the District Collector

North Goa, which has acted upon a Note dated 11.12.2024

received from the Chief Secretary of Goa and directed action

against the Deputy Collector Shri Deepak Vaingankar who

passed the impugned order, of issuing a stern written warning.

The censure issued to the said Deputy Collector is quoted

below:

............

"NOW THEREFORE Shri Deepak Vaingankar, then Deputy Collector & SDO - Pernem is hereby strictly warned not to repeat such lapses in the future and to strictly adhere to

16 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

and comply with the direction contained in the Circular No 11/32006-LD/ESTT dated 16th October, 2006, failing which necessary disciplinary action deem fit shall be initiated against you under the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 for lapses"

20. It is in the light of all the aforementioned facts that the

Petitioner has pressed for a challenge in this Court to the

reasoned orders, both dated 16.12.2023, mainly on the

grounds that these orders were brought into existence at a

later date by the Respondent No.1, only to supply reasons, for

the lack of them in the order passed on 16.12.2023 in the

Proceeding Sheet.

21. The allegations made in this petition, that the impugned

orders were placed on the file of the Deputy Collector much

later, are not an isolated incident, but judicial notice has to be

taken of several petitions that have come up alleging the

irregular procedure being followed by Authorities such as the

Collector, Deputy Collector, Mamlatdars and Revenue

Authorities in passing of orders and judgments and issuing of

certified copies of such quasi-judicial orders. Often enough,

such orders record that they were pronounced in open court,

when there is no record that they were actually pronounced

17 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

before the parties or that the orders purportedly pronounced

were actually available for perusal of the parties in the

concerned file. Similarly, there appears to be no defined

procedure for receiving Applications for Certified Copies of

records or orders of such Authorities, nor is there such defined

procedure being followed by recording the date when such an

Application was made, the date when the party applied is

required to collect the certified copy, the date when such

certified copy is actually ready and the date when it was

actually delivered. This assumes great relevance, since there

should be no ambiguity in the computations of the period of

limitation provided under a statute, whilst preferring

proceedings before a higher forum, the limitation being

reckoned after consideration of the time to be deducted for

obtaining Certified Copies.

22. In the past, this Court has had occasion to take notice of

this irregular procedure, one such being in Writ Petition No

281 of 2006 (Shri Pradeep K.R. Sangodker V/s The

state of Goa and Anr), where by order dated 24.08.2006,

gave certain directions. That was a case where similar

18 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

irregularities were complained of with regard to pending case

before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. This

Court, whilst disposing of that petition had made the following

observations:

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought a disturbing state of affairs to the notice of this Court and made a serious complaint that the complaint filed by the petitioner was heard on 19th June, 2005 and no final orders are passed in spite of lapse of more than 15 months. No final judgment has been declared. This disturbing fact when brought to the notice of this Court, Mr.Kantak fairly stated that the need has come to issue certain directions to all the courts, judicial and quasi-judicial authorities laying down certain guidelines. Learned Advocate General has circulated draft of the guidelines to be framed for the subordinate courts and authorities.

4. The inordinate and unexplained delay in pronouncement of the judgment or order actually negatives the right of the litigants given by the Statute. Any procedure or course of action which does not ensure a reasonable quick adjudication has been termed to be unjust.

9. In my opinion, since directions sought are to be issued and guidelines are required to be framed for different courts, tribunals and quasi-judicial authorities, it would be better if this Court itself frames the same rather than leaving it to the discretion of

19 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

different authorities. Hence following guidelines and directions :-

These directions shall apply to the following judicial quasi judicial authorities/bodies exercising jurisdiction in State of Goa.

a) All Civil Courts and Criminal Courts;

b) District and Sessions Courts;

c) Administrative Tribunal of Goa;

d) Industrial Tribunal;

e) Labour Courts;

f) Courts constituted under the Consumer Protection Act; viz. District Forum Commission; and State

g) All other judicial/ quasi-judicial authorities exercising such function under the State Local Acts.

All the courts/ authorities are referred to as "Court" in these directions.

(i) All Courts should arrange their roaster in such a manner that they should be able to deliver judgment/ order in any matter at the soonest possible.

(ii) Where final arguments are heard in a matter, judgment should be pronounced within a period of three months from the date of conclusion of the arguments.

(iii) In Misc. Application and/or all other matters, order shall not be delayed beyond a period of two months from the date of conclusion of arguments.

(iv) Whenever the judgment/ order is reserved, the judgement/ order when delivered should bear the date on which the judgment/order was reserved and date on which it is delivered.

(v) Directions contained in clauses 4 and 5 above shall be subject to any statutory provisions, if any, providing for a different

20 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

period such as Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005; wherein Consumer Forum is required to pass the order invariably within fifteen dates of the conclusion of the arguments as per clause-7 thereof.

(vi) Any judicial officer, failing to comply with directions at Sr.Nos.4 and/or 5 above shall report to the Registrar, High Court of Bombay at Goa every such matter where there is a failure with reasons for non- delivery of such order/ judgment. The same will form part of their personal file.

(vii) In case of Government officers discharging judicial/ quasi judicial functions, such report shall be made to the Chief Secretary of Goa and the same will form part of their personal records.

(viii) The judicial officers concerned shall also be liable for disciplinary action by the High Court and the State Government, as the case may be, for their persistent failure to comply with these directions.

(ix) It is common knowledge that most of the quasi judicial authorities communicate the decision to the parties after reserving the order. This practice should be discontinued forthwith. Every judgment/ order should be pronounced in open Court after notifying the parties the date of the order.

(x) Once the judgment/ order is pronounced, the certified copy should be made available to the parties, if applied for, not later than 7 days and not later than 2 days if the copy is applied for on urgent basis.

23. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in the aforesaid

judgment, the Law Department / Government of Goa, issued

21 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

the Circular No.11/3/2006-LD/ESTT dated 16.10.2006 which

is reproduced herein below:

CIRCULAR

Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Panajı, Goa in Writ Petition No 281/06, has passed an order dated 24-08-2006 by giving following directions and guideline, for different Courts, Tribunals and Quası- Judicial Authorities, to be followed in the matter of delivering Judgments and other incidental aspects in order to avoid unreasonable delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of a Judgement -

These directions shall apply to the following judicial quasi judicial authorities/bodies exercising jurisdiction in Sate of Goa.

(a) All Civil Courts and Criminal Courts,

(b) District and Sessions Courts,

(c) Administrative Tribunal,

(e) Labour Courts,

(f) Courts constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, viz District Forum and State Commission,

(g) All other judicial /quasi judicial authorities exercising such function under the State Locals Acts.

All the Courts/Authorities are referred to as Court in these directions,

(i) All Courts should arrange their roaster in such a manner that they should be able to deliver judgment/order in any matter at the soonest possible.

(ii) Where final arguments are heard in a matter, judgment should be pronounced within a period of three months from the date of conclusion of the arguments.

22 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

(iii) In Misc. Application and/or all matters, order shall not be delayed beyond a period of two months from the date of conclusion of arguments.

(iv) Whenever judgment/order is reserved, the judgment/order when delivered should bear the date on which the judgment/order was reserved and date on which it is delivered.

(v) Directions contained in clauses 4 and 5 above shall be subject to any statutory provisions, if any, providing for a different period such as Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 wherein Consumer Forum is required to pass the order invariably within fifteen days of the conclusion of the arguments

(v) Any judicial Officer failing to comply with directions at Sr. Nos 4 and or 5 above shall report to the Registrar High Court of Bombay at Gees, every such matter where there is a failure with reasons for non-delivery of such order/judgment. The same will form part of their personal file

(vi) In case of Government Officers discharging Judicial/quasi Judicial functions, such report shall be made to the Chief Secretary of Goa and the same will form part of their personal records

(vii) The Judicial Officers concerned shall also be liable for disciplinary action by the High Court and the State Government, as the case may be for their persistent failure to comply with these directions

(ix) It is common knowledge that most of the quasi judicial authorities communicate the decision to the parties after reserving the order This practice should be discontinued forthwith. Every judgment/order should be

23 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

pronounced in open Court after notifying the parties the date of the order

(x) Once the judgment/order is pronounced, the Certified copy should be made available to the parties, if applied for, not later than 7 days and not later than 2 days of the copy is applied for on urgent basis

The above directions are applicable to all Government Officers for discharging judicial/quasi-judicial functions under various statutes which should be scrupulously observed and followed.

V.P. Dangui, Under Secretary (Estt.)

24. The aforesaid Circular mandates that certified copies of

judgments and orders are required to be furnished within the

prescribed time and that once an order is pronounced by a

quasi-judicial authority, the same must be duly prepared,

signed and kept on record so as to enable issuance of certified

copies without delay and to avoid any apprehensions in the

minds of the parties or general public.

It is also a matter of record that the Collector, North

Goa, vide Memorandum dated 14.10.2024, circulated the said

Circular to all departments with a specific direction to strictly

adhere to the guidelines contained therein.

24 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

25. Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section

74(1) of the BSA ) defines a "public document", to be a

document forming the Act or record of the Act of a sovereign

authority, official body, tribunal, public officer, legislative,

judicial or executive officer. The records of the various

authorities passing quasi-judicial orders, which are referred to

above are all public documents, and certified copies issued by

such authorities, are essentially issued by the public officer

having custody of such documents, in term of section 76 of the

Evidence Act (Section 75 of the BSA ) . The mode of issuing a

certified copy of such public document is specified in Section

76 of the Evidence Act and once issued, such certified copy of a

public document itself is to be considered as proof of the

contents of the document as set out in Section 76 of the Act.

Under Section 79 of the Evidence Act, (Section 79 of the BSA ),

Court shall presume to be genuine, every certified copy of such

public document which is admissible as evidence of any

particular fact.

26. Where quasi-judicial orders passed by such authorities,

which include orders under the Goa Land Revenue Code 1968,

25 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

The Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkar's (Protection from

Eviction) Act, 1975, The Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act 1964,

The Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966, there

are remedies provided to assail such orders, which may be of

appeal or revision, or as provided by the particular enactment,

which may specify periods of limitation for presentation of

such proceedings to higher forum; obviously the period of

limitation has to be reckoned from the date of the

pronouncement of the order or when the Certified Copies were

actually supplied to the parties and would have to factor in

such deduction of period of time taken for the processing of

the certified copy and its actual delivery by the Authorities.

Unless there is a prescribed or set mechanism and procedure

by which these Authorities endorse in their record the date

when such Applications for Certified Copies are made, the date

by which the Authority would communicate the certified copy,

the date when such copy was actually ready for collection by

the Applicant, and the date when it was actually collected, the

presentation of the proceeding in a higher forum, where

limitation is prescribed would experience certain difficulties.

26 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

27. In the present case, the certified copy of the judgment

impugned before this Court does not contain any stamp or

certification as to when the party applied for the certified copy,

the date on which the authority communicated to the party,

the certified copy was to be collected, the period taken by the

authority to prepare the certified copy, the date when the copy

was actually completed and ready and the date when the same

was collected by the party. The period of limitation laid down

in the Mundkar Act for filing a revision against the order,

being sixty days, there is no manner in which the revisional

authority could process, calculate or reckon whether the

revision was presented within the period of limitation. In the

Mundkar Act, Section 25 provides for a remedy of revision to

the Administrative Tribunal, which shall be preferred, within

the period of limitation prescribed under Section 28 of that

Act which is sixty days from the date of the communication of

the order of the Mamlatdar.

Section 28 makes the provision of Section 4, 5 12 and 14

of the Limitation Act, 1963 applicable to filing such appeals

and revision applications.

27 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

28. Section 12 of the Limitation Act specifies which period

of time, in a legal proceeding is required to be excluded whilst

computing the period of limitation; it prescribes that the day

on which the judgment is pronounced, and the time requisite

for obtaining a copy of the judgment or order sought to be

appealed or revised is to be excluded. In addition, the time

requisite for obtaining a certified copy of the judgment is also

to be excluded. Thus, in all such quasi-judicial proceedings,

specially where a period of limitation is prescribed, and the

provisions for exclusion of time such as the one contained in

Section 12 of the Limitation Act are to be applied, it would be

incumbent on the Authority or Court issuing certified copies of

such orders which are public record, to specify all the relevant

dates which would have to be taken into consideration for

computing the period of limitation and for granting for

exclusion of time as provided under these enactments.

29. Perusing the copy of the judgments dated 16.12.2023

issued as a certified copy to the Petitioner, there is absolutely

no endorsement stamp or entry made therein of all the dates

which would have to be considered for excluding the time

28 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

taken by the Authority to issue the certified copy and to permit

the correct computation of the period of limitation. Even the

copy of the proceeding sheet contain the operative part of the

order dated 16.12.2023, which was challenged in revision, does

not contain any stamp or endorsement of the office of the

Deputy Collector as to the date on which the same was applied

for, the date given for collection, when ready and when

delivered. To fully ensure that these Authorities would admit

the parties seeking to challenge their orders in a higher forum,

the benefit of the exclusion of time permitted in computing

limitation, it would be absolutely necessary for these

Authorities to endorse on the Application for the Certified

Copy presented by the parties and on the Certified Copy of the

order or judgment issued to the parties, the following dates:

(a) The date on which the Application for Certified Copy

was received.

(b) The date on which the Application was processed and

completed by the dealing hand, which may include

the endorsement of calculation of the cost of the

29 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

Certified Copy and necessary deposit to be made by

the party.

the party

(d) The date on which the Certified Copy was actually

ready for being issued to the party and

(e) The date when the party actually collects the Certified

Copy.

30. It is only if all these dates are endorsed with clarity, and

preferably with a stamp format, both on the Certified Copy

Application and on the Certified Copy issued by the Authority,

with all these dates also endorsed on the receipt issued to the

Applicant, who is put to notice, of the date for collection of the

Certified Copy, that the period of limitation can be correctly

computed and the period taken for issuing a Certified Copy

can be excluded therefrom. This would also facilitate the

Appellate / Revisional or higher forum to calculate the correct

period of limitation and raise its objections, if such proceeding

is filed beyond the period of limitation, such procedure if

followed, would also facilitate the higher forum in considering

30 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

the applications for condonation of delay in filing proceedings

with greater ease.

31. It must also be noted that though the Circular dated

16.10.2006 specifies that if an urgent Certified Copy is applied

for it shall be issued not later than two days, these directions

are seldom followed. In fact, if the reasoned judgment or

order is on the record of the file with running pagination, there

could be no valid reason why the same could not be issued

immediately on being applied for, by the party, and there

would be no cause for allowing two days to elapse before

issuing the same. As far as possible therefore, the urgent

Certified Copy of an order ought to be issued immediately on

the application being received or at most within 48 hours,

after endorsing on the receipt issued to the Applicant, the

specific date on which he is required to collect the urgent

Certified Copy.

32. On considering the above circumstances, the orders and

directions given by this Court including the inquiry conducted

and the subsequent action taken against the concerned officer

i.e the Respondent No.1, I am of the view that challenge to

31 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

the legality of the impugned orders dated 16.12.2023 are now

to be examined by the Administrative Tribunal before whom

the Revisions are pending, to be considered and adjudicated

on its own merits.

33. Accordingly, the Goa Administrative Tribunal, before

whom the Mundkar Revision Applications are pending, shall

now consider all the facts and circumstances, including the

sequence of events concerning the pronouncement of the

operative order in the Proceedings Sheet dated 16.12.2023,

already before it and the subsequent furnishing of the detailed

reasoned order dated 16.12.2023, on 06.01.2024. It would be

relevant to state that the revisions preferred by the Petitioner

before the Administrative Tribunal are within limitation, since

they were filed on 03.01.2024, and the Proceeding Sheet

orders were passed on 16.12.2023; hence the Tribunal shall

take into consideration the date on which the reasoned order

was made available to the parties i.e 06.01.2024, and

considering that the present petition has been filed on

17.02.2024, within the period of limitation, it shall dispose of

32 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

the Revision Applications considering both sets of order to

have been challenged within limitation.

ORDER

(a) Considering that Mundkar Revision Applications

bearing Nos. 03/2024 and 02/2024 were filed on

03.01.2024, to challenge the orders dated 16.12.2023

passed in the proceeding sheet of Mundkar Appeal

number DCP/MND/APL/3-9/2023 before the Deputy

Collector, is pending before the Administrative Tribunal,

the relief sought in prayer clause (a) cannot be granted;

however, the Petitioner shall file in the Mundkar Revision

Applications No. 03/2024 and 02/2024 before the

Administrative Tribunal, the certified copies of the

detailed orders, both dated 16.12.2023, challenged in this

petition, and shall be permitted by the Tribunal to amend

the Memo of Revision to throw a challenge to the said

orders on all grounds available, including the grounds

urged in this petition. A formal application stating the

33 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

amendments to be carried out with grounds of challenge,

shall be placed before the Tribunal, for record, which shall

be allowed, and the Petitioner be permitted to incorporate

such amendment in the Revision Application. The

application for amendment shall be filed within two weeks

from today.

Mr. Deepak Gaonkar appearing, for the

Respondents, submits that objection with respect to the

limitation period will not be raised in the Tribunal.

Considering that the present petition has been filed on

17.02.2024, within the period of limitation, no objection

shall be raised by the contesting parties to the

amendment of the Memo of Revision before the Tribunal.

(b) The Administrative Tribunal shall hear and dispose of

the amended Mundkar Revision Application, preferably

within three months of the passing of this order.

to the irregular procedure being followed by the Revenue

Authorities acting in their capacity as quasi-judicial

34 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

authorities, deciding cases under the Goa Land Revenue

Code 1968, The Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkar's

(Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975, The Goa Agricultural

Tenancy Act 1964, The Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's

Court Act, 1966 and such other statutes where quasi-

judicial powers are conferred on these authorities, it is

deemed appropriate to issue certain directions to

streamline the procedure for passing Judgments/Orders

and issuing certified copies thereof to the parties.

(i) In all cases where a Judgment or Order is

passed, the same shall be pronounced by the

Authority in open Court, in the presence of the

parties, at which time the order may be signed by the

authority; an entry of the operative part of the order

shall simultaneously be made in the Proceeding

Sheet/Roznama, where the signature of the parties or

their Advocates shall be taken.

(ii) The original of the Judgment or Order

pronounced in the open Court shall be placed in the

35 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

concerned file with running pagination, such that

there is no means by which the same can be placed

on the file at any later date. The order or Judgment

shall contain the Name/Code of the dealing hand or

typist who has typed the order.

(iii) When a certified copy of the Order or

Judgment is requested by the parties, in all cases, the

Authority shall always issue a copy of the entire

Judgment, and not just the operative part contained

in the Proceeding Sheet/Roznama; in addition, if

requested, certified copy of the Proceeding Sheet may

also be issued in addition to the reasoned

Judgment/Order.

(iv) These directions shall be in addition to the

Circular No. 11/3/2006-LD/ESTT dated 16.10.2006

issued by the Under Secretary, which was issued

pursuant to directions and guidelines given by this

Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No 281/06, vide order

dated 24.08.2006.

36 OF 39

WP-198-2024.docx

(v) Application for Certified Copy shall be part of the

record of the file with running paginations.

(vi) All these Authorities shall endorse a stamp on the

Application for the Certified Copy presented by the

parties, and also on the Certified Copy of the order or

judgment issued to the parties, the following dates:

a. The date on which the Application for

Certified Copy was received.

b. The date on which the Application was

processed and completed by the dealing

hand, which may include the endorsement

of calculation of the cost of the Certified

Copy and necessary deposit to be made by

the party.